Managing fuel to reduce wildland fire risk often creates substantial public debate. Although the acceptability of various fuel management strategies has been explored in some regions, particularly North America, the social acceptability of fuel management is less well understood in other countries. This paper begins to address this knowledge gap by exploring acceptability by residents living in and near the Australian Capital Territory, Australia of three fuel management strategies (prescribed burning, livestock grazing and mechanical thinning) used to reduce wildland fire risk to life and property. All three were considered acceptable by most survey respondents. Acceptability did not vary substantially between strategies or by the location in which the strategy was undertaken. Acceptability of fuel management was associated with trust in fire management agencies, having knowledge of fuel management, feeling vulnerable to wildland fire and respondent characteristics such as previous effects of wildland fires, location of residence, gender, age, income and employment status.